DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[Brainpathology]

This building is so obviously historic it's a wonder it didn't get noticed during the decades after Mies Van de Rohe's death since, as I and every other architect student in history, ever, ever has been taught, every building based on the style of an actual good architect that copycat architects base their styles on are absotutely suridy doodlely historical. Especially given the unquestioned gems this architect has given Denver like the timeless triumph of both architecture and urban design that the Federal reserve branch bank is. I mean come on, it has a flat roof and WINDOWS!!!!!! And <swoon> look how the air handler rises triumphantly above the roof line. I'm seriously crying at the prospect of this building even being considered for the wrecking ball. Why this building isn't a museum and the Farnsworth house is I'll never know, it's just one of those injustices that I have to somehow live with without going insane at the unfairness of it all. I mean the architect has taken every idea Van de Rohe ever had and distilled it into it's purest most beautiful form. I can't believe the IBM building in Chicago hasn't been razed to be replaced with a 7-11 inside a building exactly like this. We actually should be looking for Miesian buildings that the interns of Muchow made that have windows and flat roofs so we can save them too! In the meantime everyone here will have to pray to whatever deity or spirit you believe in that this property going under contract and being slated for development is the final straw that let an otherwise ignorant population turn their eyes to this ... well miracle of design is the only appropriate term I can use.

Additionally, I'm sure this valliant private citizen hero spent the last two years perfecting the application and was too busy or shy to bring up her concerns while Trammel spent two years reaching out trying to gauge and answer concerns of the neighborhood (because they are morons and didn't learn from Redpeak's good intentions being met with bile and exaggerated faux outrage and SHOCK an identical 'historic by contract' move that may have killed that development). I'm certain she isn't just now filing the application in an effort to similarly drag the process out at the end and make the development unprofitable enough to not go forward.

I'm also certain that the allies of this rancid new vogue practice from Denver will be here on cue defending the neighbors, and the "historic" value of this building.

[corey]

While I happen to like this Miesian bank building, I think it's location on 38th Avenue can be used for the better purpose of a multi-use residential and commercial building. Density should be encouraged along 38th Ave. since it is a major street with bus lines, etc.

[Brainpathology]

From the article (and I'm not sure who to credit.. maybe John Rebchook?) here is the building being "saved". Which either demonstrates how perfectly devoid of any historic value Denver is, or that the laws about filling for historic designation need to be rethought. Sorry about the size.

[corey]

Well, to be fair, the photo in the article doesn't show the building's entrance, which is the best part. There is a separate office building component and both buildings should be considered as a whole when looking at the design. I agree that it doesn't need to be saved, as long as the replacement building isn't a pile of crap.

[Brainpathology]

I suppose... I've seen the building though. And not to diminish the importance of an artistic conversation between architects in their buildings, which I think is important; but this building doesn't say anything but "I know who Mies Van de Rohe was" (and I had to read the article to even accept that that was the language being used since Miesian architecture when not done by Van de Rohe himself can be incredibly generic) It's no more a historic piece of architecture than "Ice Ice Baby" is a historic piece of music for saying 'I know who David Bowie/Queen is'

[TakeFive]

Just as a general aesthetic point I think it's cool to see historically significant buildings preserved. I like the flavor of context and character that they add to a neighborhood.

Just as a general point of principle I have a high regard for property rights.

With respect to the Tavern Uptown building I'd like to see it preserved. Southern Land which now owns the whole half block along Pearl Street could easily incorporate the building into their development just as Alliance Res. did across from Coors Field. I have no expectation that a developer from Tennessee should give a wit about the building. I'll be delighted if the building is NOT demolished.

It seems hard to argue that a Queen Ann isn't historical nor significant depending partly on it's condition/integrity. But here the issue of an individual's property rights as opposed to some developer in Tennessee is higher IMO. I'm on the fence.

With respect to this latest question I assume this is as much about anti-dense development as historical buildings. I have no opinion of the building(s) and would guess they have little chance for an historical designation. Certainly that's how I would vote.

[EngiNerd]

It's just that these people have YEARS to go about submitting for historical building designation, but they only wait until the very last minute to do so, essentially pulling the rug out from under the property owner on a build or sale when there is the threat of redevelopment.

Why aren't these "Friends of the West Highlands" going around and taking stock of the homes and properties in their neighborhood, and submitting for historical designation today if they are truly concerned about saving the "historical charm" of their neighborhood? These types of tactics just reek of anti-development underhanded bull shit instead of trying to truly save something that actually does have historical significance.

[Brainpathology]

I'm thrilled when historic architecture is saved. I'm glad there is a way to do it. I'm happy when something old AND attractive is saved or rehabilitated. I'm a bit sad when something that is old and charming is demolished for something new. But I don't think it should be against the law. I also think those of us who actually care about historic architecture should be livid that the law meant to save examples of such architecture is being used not to protect history but to prevent progress. When the pendulum swings back as it inevitably does, examples of truly important structures are going to be in jeopardy. I can already imagine an argument being made that overly loose historic rules contribute to making it impossible to develop affordable housing in Denver. I could actually be made to believe it DOES given the amount of money developers have to waste kissing the collective asses of potential neighbors who feign interest in working with them and then sabotage plans using the law.

Either that or we just admit we're Boulder the sequel and mandate that no structure older than a certain age (75? 100? years) is ever razed again and must be incorporated into any new development or just left alone. At least then developers or private citizens won't have to worry about random filings from not even a tiny bit well meaning parties seeking 'historic' designation.

[TakeFive]

Speaking of Historic Preservation

Courtesy of Johnson & Wales University via Denver Business Journal

"Johnson & Wales completes $32 million in campus renovations"
Aug 26, 2015 by Ed Sealover Denver Business Journal

The one-time Treat Hall — built in 1886 for the Colorado Women’s College — had been shuttered since 1982. That was 18 years before Johnson & Wales bought the Park Hill-area campus at Quebec Street and East Montview Boulevard, once belonging to the University of Denver, and decided to make it the centerpiece of its Rocky Mountain expansion.

Now the building holds faculty and administrative offices, a cafe, student-learning areas and a large hall area that will be used for events.

[bunt_q]

That is a historic building.

I am skeptical of any single family home as having something uniquely historical - we have so much single family housing stock that it's just hard to distinguish any one home. And "being pretty" or "being historic" are not the criteria - otherwise, we'd never tear down a single Victorian ever again. That neither strikes the balance we need with private property rights, nor does it enable a city that started as being nearly exclusively single family home to grow and evolve. We can't be a museum city vis-a-vis Vienna because if we do, we're locked at being the small City we were 100 years ago.

Not coincidentally, the criteria generally mirror my own thinking. You need to check two of three boxes from the criteria below to qualify. And I think it's almost always going to be hard for a single family home to meet #3 (Geography). Unlike Johnson and Wales, a single family home, however historic, is rarely going to be a significant structure in the context of Denver's overall physical character, or serve much purpose for distinctive urban placemaking.

#2 (Architecture) is probably the easiest, because these homes often represent an era with a distinctive architectural style.

So it comes down to #1 (History)... and I think that's right. About the only justification I can see for landmarking a run-of-the-mill structure is if something important happened there, or if it's associated with an important person. Absent that - no matter how pretty or historic, no one Queen Anne should be landmarked, because then you'd have to landmark them all, and that's no way for a city to grow with time. (And I'm sorry, but being a really pretty Queen Anne is not a legally intelligible criteria.)


For reference (I post this frequently):

30-3. Criteria for designation of structures and districts for preservation. If a structure or district maintains its historic or physical integrity, it may be designated for preservation if it meets at least one (1) criterion in two (2) or more of the following three (3) categories:

(1) History. To have historical significance, the structure or district shall be thirty (30) or more years old or have extraordinary importance to the historical development of Denver, and shall:
a. Have direct association with the historical development of the city, state, or nation;
b. Be the site of a significant historic event; or
c. Have direct and substantial association with a person or group of persons who had influence on society.

(2) Architecture. To have architectural significance, the structure or district shall have design quality and integrity, and shall:
a. Embody distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type;
b. Be a significant example of the work of a recognized architect or master builder;
c. Contain elements of architectural design, engineering, materials, craftsmanship, or artistic merit which represent a significant or influential innovation; or
d. Portray the environment of a group of people or physical development of an area in an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural style.

(3) Geography. To have geographical significance, the structure or district shall:
a. Have a prominent location or be an established, familiar, and orienting visual feature of the contemporary city;
b. Promote understanding and appreciation of the urban environment by means of distinctive physical characteristics or rarity; or
c. Make a special contribution to Denver's distinctive character.

[TakeFive]

I fail to see how replacing a Queen Ann with four 2-story townhouse units is a big win for density? I really would hate to see all the nice single-family homes in West Highlands replaced by new 2-story townhouses. I think the same about the many well regarded neighborhoods in Denver.

I'm content and impressed with the recent zoning redo. Some areas were up-zoned while other areas were down-zoned - as I understand it.

At least at this time I don't see any shortage of opportunities for new high density housing? I'd guess that 90/95% of the time "old houses" or structures aren't worth saving. The small percentage of buildings worth preserving should be an easy enough load to lift.

[corey]

The Johnson and Wales building looks especially lovely framed by a flowering crabapple branch. Very nice Richardsonian Romanesque building. I sought out a lot of H.H. Richardson's buildings when I was in Boston, Albany, and other NE cities. He was a master. I don't see many high quality examples of Victorian houses being demolished for new development in Denver any longer. There are lots of 100+ year old homes that were just basic housing in the first place that will be demolished (especially in Lower Highland) and I have no problem with that. Although the timing might not have been great for the Jefferson Park homeowner, I think that house should go through the historic designation process, whatever the outcome, because it might actually check 2 of the 3 boxes. I don't think the demolition of a nice 125+ year old building should occur without some review just because the developer wants to make more money with a larger project. Just my opinion.

[TakeFive]

"Alta City House 78 percent leased"
August 26, 2015 by Justin, Denver Urban Review

Photos courtesy Alta City House

Announcing the project's completion it looks to have turned out pretty nice. It's in the Wood Partners typical style but it appears they stepped up their game for this one. I also checked out the Alta City House web site where they've got a nice gallery with additional photos.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

"Alta City House 78 percent leased"
August 26, 2015 by Justin, Denver Urban Review
[snip]

Photos courtesy Alta City House

Announcing the project's completion it looks to have turned out pretty nice. It's in the Wood Partners typical style but it appears they stepped up their game for this one. I also checked out the Alta City House web site where they've got a nice gallery with additional photos.

I agree that these are "above average" compared to much of recent construction and have some nice looks and nice features. The still look to me though a little "Vaguely Denver Generic - Circa 2015" style architecture, as I'd refer to about 30 different projects that have been built with very similar look in Denver area over the last five years.

The one outstanding architectural exception I've seen in last few years remains the Speer and Washington apartments. I wish there were more like this!

[denconyny]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

..........

The one outstanding architectural exception I've seen in last few years remains the Speer and Washington apartments. I wish there were more like this!

......

Of course can't resist throwing in my 2cents here, since I haven't done so in a while..... as I think that the Balfour Riverfront Park at 15th & Little Raven is tops among 5-6 story multi-family residential buildings.


http://image-store.slidesharecdn.com/dc43ca2e-31b8-4413-81e8-cae399a687d7-large.jpeg


http://www.nv5.com/wp-content/uploads/20...front-Park700-e1438054548731-618x250.jpg


http://www.businessden.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Balfour-senior-living-3.jpg

(I have to also add that these pix I'm referencing here above don't quite do the justice to this building as viewing in person.)

Besides being a well done building, it's kinda neat to have a section of street pass through a building like this (or in general to have a building sit atop moving auto traffic). I would question if health-wise that it's exactly the best thing to do..... and it's probably just me, but it's neat to see transportation infrastructure included as part of the floor plan in a multi-story like this....

Ok.... so enuf of my 2cents now, eh?

[Cirrus]

Great proportions on that Alta City House corner.

[seventwenty]

Eh, still could have been taller.

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Eh, still could have been taller.

Then there'd probably still be some managing to find a way to complain about it then too.

[corey]

The other thing "alta" about Alta City House is the rent. 645 SF studio is almost $1,800 a month and a 3 bedroom is $3,600 a month. It would undoubtedly be fully leased if the rent wasn't that high. The blue paneling is a nice touch. My guess is that this one goes condo eventually with really high prices. It will be like Writer's Square.

[mojiferous]

Looking out my office window this morning, I noticed a crane somewhere in the West Highland-ish area... Anyone know what that is for?